Jump to content

People v. Brown - FOID ruled unconstituional in IL District Court


Molly B.

Recommended Posts

 

Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort? I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included

Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case.

I sent $50 through PayPal marked Brown case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10-16 order is funny. I don't know why the court expanded its argument from the 2-14 ruling since I can't see the responses filed after 2-14 but it's funny.

 

The court says the law is unconstitutional because it states you must have the FOID "on your person" if in "constructive possession", and since you are in constructive possession at all times while at home the law means you could never not be carrying your FOID on your person while in the house.

 

Ie, the law is unconstitutional because you'd have to shower with your FOID to comply. LOL

Edited by gtr2009
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 10-16 order is funny. I don't know why the court expanded its argument from the 2-14 ruling since I can't see the responses filed after 2-14 but it's funny.

 

The court says the law is unconstitutional because it states you must have the FOID "on your person" if in "constructive possession", and since you are in constructive possession at all times while at home the law means you could never not be carrying your FOID on your person while in the house.

 

Ie, the law is unconstitutional because you'd have to shower with your FOID to comply. LOL

 

Wouldn’t you be in ‘constructive possession’ of your FOID card if it was anywhere in the house.

 

 

^ this ***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now here is a first. Second City Cop Blog is now quoting us:

 

FOID Card "Unconstitutional!

This is going to the Illinois Supreme Court, and probably the US Supreme Court. From the Illinois Carry website:

This is a case in my own circuit court that we have been monitoring for the past year. The court ruled the FOID Act unconstitutional in regards to the licensing and taxing requirement to be in possession of a firearm or ammunition in your own home. The IL Attorney General has appealed the case to the IL Supreme Court.

 

Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID. Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.

 

We were in contact with the attorney for this case and discovered he was retiring and will not be representing Ms. Brown at the IL Supreme Court level. We have sought legal representation for Ms. Brown and believe the case will be in good hands. More news to follow!

Sounds like a bunch more taxpayer money to be wasted courtesy of the democrats coming up soon!

Labels: gun issues

 

POSTED BY SCC AT 12:01 AM 11 COMMENTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cliff notes: Lady with a clean record, in possession of a single shot, bolt action rifle .22 in the home for personal protection. No FOID but otherwise eligible for a FOID. Judge ruled requiring a license and charging a fee/tax to exercise a Constitutional right in the home unconstitutional.

 

I know we are all well aware of how BS this system is but when they spell it out like above, it makes me wonder how it's been allowed to stand for so long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Literally just came by to wish you all,well, perhaps not the best of luck but the best of timing in terms of the next court(s) the case gets heard in. I have close friends in IL, so just wanted to tack on some well-wishing. It occurs to me that, post-Heller or not, it is sad that no one in a court seems to have embraced the 2nd Amendment in the way that Murdock v. Pennsylvania embraced the First, e.g., "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." and the doctrine of "freedom of press, freedom of speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position", indicating that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative. Would that more jurists took that approach with the 2nd.

 

Fair winds & following seas in your journey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if the FOID requirement is unconstitutional to Brown, what about ". . . nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause?

 

Fourteenth Amendment? Fourteenth Amendment? If it applies to Brown v. Board of Education and also applies to everyone, than how can this Brown v. not ALSO apply to everyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Was asking the same question. Why as applied rather than facial? Think of it from the perspective of a defense lawyer. Job is to get YOUR client acquitted. Not help millions of fellow residents. Her counsel was apparently OSAD (Office of State Appellate Defender) and likely plead it as applied because he was throwing wet noodles against a wall. Just so happens that one stuck. He wasn't thinking BIG picture. Just "give my client her right to counsel."That being said, if it's unconstitutional as applied in this case, it's unconstitutional on its face because the same onerous BS is placed on everyone who wishes to own a firearm for lawful purposes. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How can it be unconstitutional just to one person and NOT by definition violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Was asking the same question. Why as applied rather than facial? Think of it from the perspective of a defense lawyer. Job is to get YOUR client acquitted. Not help millions of fellow residents. Her counsel was apparently OSAD (Office of State Appellate Defender) and likely plead it as applied because he was throwing wet noodles against a wall. Just so happens that one stuck. He wasn't thinking BIG picture. Just "give my client her right to counsel." That being said, if it's unconstitutional as applied in this case, it's unconstitutional on its face because the same onerous BS is placed on everyone who wishes to own a firearm for lawful purposes. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

That being the case, perhaps it would be a very ripe time for a class-action lawsuit using that fact as determined by this decision to challenge the FOID law once and for all.

 

Does IllinoisCarry have the ear of some hard-charging Second Amendment/civil rights attorneys that would be open to entertaining pursuing this? Surely we can GoFundMe, even just among the thousands on this board and their families and friends who support firearm rights, a considerable retainer fee to get the ball rolling.

 

I have an extra $500 in my shooting funds jar that is just sitting around to either purchase a new toy or waiting for my favorite ammo manufacturer to have a big discount code sale. I'd happily repurpose that for a donation if I knew it would actually be applied to that cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort? I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included

Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case.

 

 

 

Can you provide a link or info on how to do this, for those of us that aren't too savoy? Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Molly, is there any need to start a GoFundMe to help in this effort? I'm sure there a lot of people here who would be willing to kick in a few bucks - myself included

 

Rather than a go fund me, we would rather see donations to IllinoisCarry marked Brown case.

 

Can you provide a link or info on how to do this, for those of us that aren't too savoy? Thanks in advance.

Donation page...http://www.illinoiscarry.com/subscribe_donate.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Imagine the roadblock this would throw in JB & Madigan's way if this case goes in Brown's favor. Wouldn't that put a "knot in their knickers" !!

It would toss the antis into chaos, at least in this state.

 

It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway. Once upon a time, the argument in favor of the FOID was that anyone could do a background check on anyone just by checking the validity of their FOID; and all the legal firearms were already known to be in the possession of people with FOIDs. Therefore universal background checks and firearm registration were unnecessary for those purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger question right now is whether the Illinois Supreme Court, led by Anne Burke, is likely to affirm the trial court's finding. Given the political makeup of the Illinois Supreme Court, my first thought is that the odds at this point favor reversal and an upholding of the FOID law from a political perspective. Then it becomes a US Supreme Court fight. The Illinois Supreme Court could (1) uphold the statute entirely, or (2), I believe, the Ill. Sup. Court could just strike the fee provision and uphold the rest of the statute, or (3) strike the statute in its entirety. Right now there is little to do but wait the appeal and the decision. Luckily for us, the case does not go through the intermediate appellate court and, instead, goes straight to the Illinois Supreme Court, so we will have a decision more quickly.

Edited by gunuser17
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway.

 

And that leaves open the same argument about a 'tax on exercising a right' that is unless these rolled out universal background checks are going to be free? And I would argue that a database of those that choose to exercise a right is an infringement upon the right itself, but that is an argument for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bigger question right now is whether the Illinois Supreme Court, led by Anne Burke, is likely to affirm the trial court's finding. Given the political makeup of the Illinois Supreme Court, my first thought is that the odds at this point favor reversal and an upholding of the FOID law from a political perspective. Then it becomes a US Supreme Court fight. The Illinois Supreme Court could (1) uphold the statute entirely, or (2), I believe, the Ill. Sup. Court could just strike the fee provision and uphold the rest of the statute, or (3) strike the statute in its entirety. Right now there is little to do but wait the appeal and the decision. Luckily for us, the case does not go through the intermediate appellate court and, instead, goes straight to the Illinois Supreme Court, so we will have a decision more quickly.

 

I think the whole thing will have to go. They can't just strike the fee because then a FOID would still require a "permit" to exercise a constitutional right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure that simply requiring a free permit would be prohibited. Cities are allowed to require permits for parades or speakers corners even though there is a free speech right that prohibits government interference. Churches still have to get building permits despite the first amendment exercise of religion clause. I wouldn't be surprised to see an argument by the the Illinois Supreme Court hanging its hat on something like since requiring building permits or special zoning for church construction is permitted in spite of the "free exercise" provision of the 1st amendment, so are the FOID provisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would just add impetus to "universal" background checks (i.e., prohibiting personal transfers) and mandatory firearm registration, which anti-2As already want, anyway.

And that leaves open the same argument about a 'tax on exercising a right' that is unless these rolled out universal background checks are going to be free? ...

 

UBC wouldn't be free. It would be the same FFL-transfer fee we already know, but it would be a one-time cost associated with transferring the firearm. There'd just be no on-going fee only to possess a firearm. Eliminating FFL transfer fees on constitutional grounds would be difficult, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cities are allowed to require permits for parades or speakers corners even though there is a free speech right that prohibits government interference.

 

Yes, the government can place nondiscriminatory and narrowly drawn minimal (no more than cost) monetary fees, time and place restrictions on a right when it's deemed it will stress resources or will impede the pedestrian or vehicle movement or interfere with peace, but just the same nothing stops those same people even in small groups from walking and speaking along the same exact routes or doing it a park at other times without a permit when there is no need for additional resources and it's not impeding others. Plus there must be a fee waiver procedure for those that can't afford the fees.

 

Even so this 'assembly' or 'public display' fee is actually something the ACLU actively lobbies against.

 

 

 

Churches still have to get building permits despite the first amendment exercise of religion clause.

 

And the 2nd equivalent of that would be that gun ranges still need building permits also, it's not a fee on exercising the right it's a fee on building a structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...